Contents:

Effective and efficient water management implies understanding the wants and desires of the human populations through its key stakeholder groups. As a valuable resource that involves many regulating and managing players, the Red River of the North basin is an excellent case for studying stakeholder preferences and presenting them to involved managers. The primary goal of this research was to analyze stakeholder preferences for hypothetical Red River basin fresh water management alternatives. Specific objectives included comparing preferences across key stakeholder groups and estimating residents’ willingness to pay for additional water management programs. Initial experts’ and focus group meetings were used to select appropriate attributes and levels to be used within a stated choice experiments analysis. The final list of attributes included: additional recreation opportunities, water supply augmentation projects, water quality initiatives, and the type of institution that would be trusted. An additional levy upon annual property taxes, ranging from $20 to $240, was used as the price of these additional programs. Mail surveys were sent to three main stakeholder groups: informed stakeholders, who had attended the Red River Basin Commission water management conference; decision-makers, including county commissioners and mayors in basin constituencies; and random residents. An overall response rate of 34% was achieved. One interesting result was the general homogeneity of opinions across stakeholder groups. A log likelihood test failed to reject the hypothesis that stakeholders’ preferences were the same across groups. Results from the pooled nested logit model show younger respondents, males, non-farmers and those categorized as pro resource conservation in favor of additional water management projects. Initiatives that were favored by respondents included: phosphorous and nitrogen reduction and enhanced fishery management. Because the population of random residents did not demonstrate a preference for any additional water management option as opposed to the status quo, willingness to pay was not estimated.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nddaae:36774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.